Who?
Those interested in best Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) practices among workers who handle pesticides on the job.

How to participate?

1. Registration is required. Use the internet link provided.
2. You will receive a confirmation email with connection information.
3. Please “check your system” right away to ensure your computer system is compatible and download any software (as necessary), or connect to the link to ensure it is compatible.
4. We are limited in the number of Live Meeting connections, so if colleagues within the same physical location could share, only one person from the group needs to register.

* Please connect to the meeting up to 1 hour in advance to allow time for technical support
** If attending in person, the entire meeting lasts from 8:00 -5:00. The full agenda is available at:https://www.team-psa.com/niosh/Stakeholders/2012/agenda.aspand and there is a Best Pesticide PPE Training Techniques workshop in the morning on Mar. 21, 2012 (8:00-12:30)

EPA will describe the process used to determine PPE requirements for workers who handle EPA registered pesticides. The different phases of what EPA does (e.g., risk assessment) will be described. Requirements relevant to both, Agriculture (Crop Protection) and Turf & Ornamental (Non-Crop) product labels will be covered, as well as those relevant to early reentry will be included in the discussion. This will include some discussion on the hierarchy of controls and how a pesticide user should interpret the PPE specified on the pesticide label (e.g., "coveralls", "eye protection", etc.) will be addressed. Other topics that will be addressed include requirements for registering a product and the label review process and the potential for using different existing PPE standards in their qualification of their PPE requirements (e.g., other than the NIOSH certified respirators).

Improving the Ability to Identify Pesticide PPE in the Purchasing Process. Most stakeholders at the NIOSH 2011 Personal Protective Technology (PPT) Stakeholders Meeting thought that difficulty identifying pesticide PPE in the purchasing process was an important reason why workers who handle pesticides are not able to obtain correct PPE required by the pesticide label. In this interactive session, issues and solutions related to challenges in identifying correct pesticide PPE in the purchasing process will be discussed. Topics that may be discussed include pesticide PPE information sharing, PPE performance standards, pesticide label language, PPE labeling or lack thereof, PPE label language, and PPE packing and marketing. Discussion from key stakeholder groups, including pesticide and PPE suppliers and manufacturers, EPA, OSHA, NIOSH, and employers, supervisors and end-users is especially encouraged.

Breakout Session 2: 3:00– 4:30 PM EST

Improving Universal Safety Culture. Most stakeholders at the NIOSH 2011 Personal Protective Technology (PPT) Stakeholders Meeting thought that poor safety culture was an important reason why workers who handle pesticides do not wear correct PPE even when it is available. This interactive session will address issues and solutions related to industry, workplace, and user-specific cultures and steps that can be taken to improve the overall safety culture. Topics discussed may include universal safety culture spanning from pesticide and PPE manufactures to the end users of the products and equipment; needs for upper management to embrace the need and benefit for pesticide safety; overcoming language barriers; improved product packaging information; safety and health management systems; behavior change motivators; and potential challenges related to short-term workers, limited resources, and regulatory-based as opposed to hazard-based PPE requirements. Key stakeholder groups, including pesticide and PPE suppliers and manufacturers, EPA, OSHA, NIOSH, and employers, supervisors and end-users are encouraged to participate. Discussion from key stakeholder groups, including pesticide and PPE suppliers and manufacturers, EPA, OSHA, NIOSH, and employers, supervisors and end-users is especially encouraged.

** If attending in person, the entire meeting on Mar 20, 2012 lasts from 8:00 -5:00 (EST). Registration and full agenda is available at: https://www.team-psa.com/niosh/Stakeholders/2012/agenda.asp Also, a Pesticide PPE Best Training Techniques Workshop will be held on Mar. 21, 2012 from 8:00-10:00 and again from 10:30 -12:30 EST.

Because reasons for the persistence of Heat Related Illness (HRI) among farmworkers are complex, the search for effective and feasible solutions must involve diverse approaches. We are gathering behavioral, physiological and environmental data from California agricultural workers and environments that will allow us to assess vulnerability to HRI, and provide the methodology to test potential solutions in the fields. Innovative protective equipment (e.g. clothing fabrics, shade structures) are also an important part of the solution. The methodology and evaluated interventions will provide techniques for understanding and tackling HRI in diverse agricultural settings. As extreme heat events are likely to increase with global climate change, this research and anticipated outreach with functional and culturally applicable solutions, is both urgent and essential. Our findings and interventions are integrated into our Ag Center Outreach Core to translate into educational and outreach programs in a manner that will have the highest impact on the most vulnerable farm workers.

Archives

Use of Industry Exposure Databases for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Research
Curt Lunchick, Dick Collier, and David Barnekow

The Agricultural Handlers Exposure Task Force (AHETF) and the Agricultural Reentry Task Force (ARTF) are both industry task forces formed under LLC agreements for the purpose of generating occupational exposure data for use by the respective memberships, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Authority for the conduct of exposure and risk assessments required by the two federal regulatory agencies. The data developed by both task forces involved the quantification of both dermal and inhalation exposure to agricultural workers during normal work activities. The AHETF data are specific to pesticide handlers during the mixing/loading and application of pesticides while the ARTF data are specific to workers conducting post application activities in treated crops.

The data collected involved many different formulations of pesticides, application methods including the use of engineering controls, and multiple post application activities in a wide range of crop types. In all circumstances the work attire, worn by the study participants, was identified as were numerous other specifics regarding monitoring. Dermal exposure data were collected by the use of passive dosimeters placed under the work attire and with rinses or wiping of the hands, neck, and face. Inhalation exposure data were collected with personal air samplers. In many of the ARTF studies dermal exposure was also monitored with dosimeters placed outside of the workers’ clothing. The AHETF and ARTF data can be useful to the NIOSH effort in regards to understanding PPE efficiency and practicality by providing exposure data that monitors the exposure under work attire under actual use conditions and also providing information on the distribution of exposure to different body areas during different handling activities and different field work activities. With certain limitations to protect our data ownership rights, the AHETF and ARTF propose to make these data available to researchers in the NIOSH effort.

Carol Ramsay
Washington State University and National Association of State Departments of Agriculture

There is a regulatory framework for personal protective equipment (PPE) training in the US. The US Occupational and Safety Health Administration regulations have PPE training requirements that apply to both agricultural and nonagricultural pesticide handlers. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency pesticide regulations have provisions required for all certified pesticide applicators and agricultural pesticide handlers. In particular, PPE requirements and EPA’s required training for PPE are addressed in pesticide labeling regulations (40 CFR Part 156 Subpart K), applicator certification regulations (40 CFR Part 171), and the Worker Protection Standards (WPS) (40 CFR Part 170). Each regulation will be discussed in the framework of which pesticide handler groups are impacted and how the regulations address PPE training and the label requirements for PPE. All states, territories and some tribes have primacy for administering applicator certification and WPS regulations, and in most cases have additional requirements beyond the federal regulations.

The state’s role is critical for both training and enforcement. The variety of additional state requirements creates an uneven treatment for PPE training, as well as the decades-old certification regulation and 19-year old WPS. University Cooperative Extension Services are a key partner for developing PPE training resources and delivering the education and there are differences among states on how education is funded and delivered, which impacts PPE training. Several training strategies will be presented that are used throughout the country, including but not limited to fact sheets, training manuals, presentations, and hands-on demonstrations.

Given the economic times, a couple future efforts could assist with improving training. These include but are not limited to clarity on the pesticide label regarding PPE is required and an accompanying gold-standard set of training resources addressing PPE selection, fit, care, decontamination, life span and the marketplace where identified PPE clothing and devices items actually can be purchased.

Archives: Recordings (Parts 1 and 2) are available for 1 year from the seminar date: